Loyd and Duteau working on harmonization of BRIDG to RIM under NCI contract. CDISC taking it through JIC and ISO process without the RIM piece. Charlie Mead showed a Proposed Structure for BRIDG 3.0 slide. NCI is funding Layer 3 for a RIM-compliant layer, will that be balloted with RCRIM. NCI is also mapping it to SAEAF, a conceptual model and a platform independent model. CDISC going to JIC instead of through HL7 to get ISO brand instead of ANSI brand. They need to be joined up at the JIC level. These two projects need to be linked. We’d like comments sought from both the ISO and HL7/JIC community and resolution handled jointly. Need to get HL7 comments into the ISO process. Charlie Mead says we’d want CDISC and HL7 comments synchronized. John says we can take advantage of the ballot cycle, using the extra room in the ISO ballot (5 months) for the HL7 ballot (30 days). Ed Hammond says JIC agreement is all participating groups vote on the same document, and comments handled by collaborative group, led by CDISC. Ed confirms this is, indeed, a JIC project. Woody suggests that it needs to be tightly integrated, even a project prerequisite, to the ISO JIC project. They should be balloting the same set of documents. The SCC (semantic coordinating committee) with HL7 and CDISC, has a list within section 7 of the PSS for what will be balloted. JIC ballot needs to stay within this schedule. Mead confirms. What do people want to see in the Project Scope Statement? The development should be managed as a single JIC project with ISO. Helen indicates this project should have responsibility for half of that coordination. Charlie McCay asks to take this offline.

Austin objects to this proposal as no reconciliation package posted. (Commenters not notified of the disposition of their comments). Woody says HL7 discussion of CTS2 model for vocabulary whether required as part of OMG process to be considered as part of the final product. SFM is not a detailed model. Other architectural issues exist, to prevent approval of publication. Ioana suggests a recommendation that along with posting of reconciliation package, that CTS2 work with ArB as part of their alpha project process for SAEAF. Grahame had heard that disposition of comments was not needed for DSTU. Woody clarifies that not all negatives need to be withdrawn but the reconciliation still needs to be posted and negatives addressed. We can re-address this on Tuesday if they post reconciliation over the weekend. Ken moves to table to Tuesday, Ravi second. Capture date posted reconciliation to notified (verified by Don Lloyd) and date commenters notified on the request to publish. Motion to table unanimously approved.

2010 Ballot Cycle - impacts of Work Group Meeting schedule for T3: Oct 3-8 2010 to Jan 9-14 2011. Woody describes the late fall meeting 2010 and early January meeting for 2011 Publishing calendar indicates the committees would have only 4 weeks to get material in. Woody says they will suggest on Monday night that domain content for V3 be deferred for the January 2011 ballot. Advantage is that Tooling projects could verify publishing capabilities during that cycle. Ioana asks if we can give the committees a choice. Woody says we would provide the suggestion and let the work groups push back. This does not include implementation guides and such, just the contents of the V3 ballot package. Austin says we need to make it clear this is happening so they’re aware, Helen adds that is why we publish the ballot cycle a year in advance. Woody will take this discussion under advisement to the committee. Woody says they have discussed whether they will not publish past material if it has not changed, not to include normative material, it means taking stuff apart. This does not include common materials (datatypes, wrappers etc). Gregg asks if the three-year plans are in a state so we can see what we have in the hopper for that T3. Helen cautions against removing existing normative content for those who want to compare consistency of new material to existing previously approved material. Fear is that they are implementing from the ballot site instead of using the schedule. Next fall’s meeting is also back to back over ISO meeting. McCay asks what is the process? Lillian sends out information, Mark McDougall takes input, check with the hotel to find dates available. Hammond says there is some attempt to track meetings over time but there are so many meetings it is hard to keep them straight. Woody suggests we get the Board to endorse the notion is difficult to be outside the Jan/May/Sep schedule. TSC needs documenting the criteria and process for WGM scheduling.

Roadmap discussion

How can the TSC model Roadmap-driven activities for the WGs and the org. Does the Roadmap need to change for that to happen?

How do we drive it forward, how to demonstrate benefits (carrots and sticks)...

Review the use of available metrics, e.g. Work Group Health

Discussion: Roadmap effort going on for two years now. As a rhetorical question, how many know what the five strategies and the 27 tasks are? McCay wants discussion whether the Roadmap is a good idea, do we agree that the structure as 5 strategies, 27 tasks makes sense, how can we make sense of the roadmap being offered to us, how do we want to see it change to make it more effective and useful, what suggestions to make it more useful to the organization as a whole.

Ioana indicates the PSS has the 5 strategies, Project Services has integrated into a document each has to fill out when starting a project. How does indicating the checkbox, shape my thinking as I’m developing my project? Who looks to see the artifacts fulfill the intent of the strategy? Helen asks if the TSC would reject a scope statement if one of the boxes not checked? Or if the boxes are checked appropriately. Calvin says the roadmap seems to focus on the changes we want, not what we’re doing. 80% of what we’re doing isn’t reflected in the Roadmap. McCay indicates the discussion says we’re not engaging with the Roadmap effect tively. The Roadmap that states what change we want to see is not the best use of an organization strategy. Hammond indicates the Board spent time on the Roadmap without the involvement of the TSC. Board’s contribution of the Roadmap with the strategic elements, but still needs the technical and operational components. What level to put things into the roadmap from strategic vs operational perspective. Putting active projects into the roadmap is not useful. Degree of explicitness is something that needs to be determined. Tripp adds that strategy documents need to be reviewed and refreshed at least annually. How does the TSC use the information in the Roadmap in what the Board needs and wants. Ken says there’s lack of clarity of the intent of the Roadmap as a tactical document versus as a strategic document. The five Strategies are strategic and the supporting 80+ items are tactical, but it’s all lumped into the Roadmap. Woody says MnM found problems in not having every project aligned with a strategy. Each committee should be trying to support at least one of them, none of the strategies should have no committees supporting it. Calvin says in reviewing administrative secretarial support to the WG, we talked about offering it to those trying to align with SEAF. Oh, and SAEAF should be on the Roadmap. Do we allocate Publishing or give it away freely. Austin agrees we can use those Roadmap alignments to determine how we allocate those resources. Tripp says that maintenance of existing standards are not necessarily listed as one of those strategic objectives; add some operational goals or core principles to the strategies. McCay says five years ago groups didn’t even publish their reconciliation packages. Now we can say unless they are in the green on WG Health perhaps they don’t get resource dropped in to help them out. Ravi adds there must be balance that not everything can be linked to the vision but there must be some things. McCay notes that IGs in conflict with existing standards might not be part of the vision but might be a very important activity. Ken asks if things not aligning with the roadmap indicate they have failed in some way? Woody compares it to eating and breathing, some core elements we must treat as critical ongoing activities: active concern for quality, maintenance. Hammond says it would be valuable to recognize areas to worry about in the future. Need to worry about what HL7 will do on the broad set of archetypes and templates. Make sure we advertise it to the different work groups; get it in front of them. We think this is important. Quinn notes that the Board spends more time on topics that are tied to the strategies; as the Board nears agreement on those topics the questions come to the TSC for operationalization. Board is spending less time on tactical things that we the TSC talk about. Less time spent educating the Board on what the committees are doing. McCay also adds that there’s easier ways for them to see what the Work Groups are doing. Still a lack of clarity around what the roadmap achieves and what it means to this group. Austin adds a strategic roadmap without strategic resources tacked on to it is useless. Resources coming in from the work groups bubble up. Board needs to allocate strategic resources to drive those strategies forward. Hammond agrees, but: Board and TSC need some direct conversation; board has discussed if HL7 mission and vision is accepted by the entire organization they need to fill in the gaps. Work groups tend to do what they want to do. Suggested that developing standards to fill in the gaps not currently addressed by the work groups doing what they want to do, met with pushback. Not just a Board issue and not just a TSC issue. Gregg opines the Roadmap strategies irrelevant to what we’re trying to do, with the core business of HL7 to producing standards, and closing eyes to select one of the checkboxes but not having it drive what they’re doing. Mead says this is déjà vu from CDISC board meeting, danger in only listening to the users. Need someone looking at 3-6 year plans into the future, where users are only looking at their short term needs. Ioana recounts that the strategy needs to be ‘sold’ to the people. Seppala clarifies: in terms to applicability to TSC managing day to day technical stuff, don’t see a strategy to 'keep doing your core business'. Calvin states the model of the RIM brought control and order to some chaos. Intent of SAEAF layers on top for dynamics and other aspects. If you want a change, don’t go out and beat up on the work groups. Give them an environment to work in, rationalization, maybe some resources, but recognize the work groups come together based on their common interests. Hammond asks what should the board be doing to encourage the work groups to fill the gaps, how to move ahead with things people don’t yet see the need to do. Mead indicates that the ones that do the work are from a certain category of stakeholders, but there are other categories of stakeholders that don’t necessarily show up and do the work.

McCay indicates we need some further discussion on this. Roadmap gives long term direction but is not clear how the TSC interacts with it. Continue the discussion in the TSC with some ideas pulled together by Lynn, with input from Calvin Beebe, Charlie Mead, Ed Tripp, Ken McCaslin, Ed Hammond. Action Item to Calvin and Charlie to come up with a brief for the TSC, by Tuesday lunch.

Q2: 11 AM-12:30 PM

Return to order 11:05 am.

Note to committee: Will need to elect TSC Chair after the Plenary Meeting; clarify process.

Send nominations to Lynn after the WGM and have a vote on the list, or surveymonkey. Calvin moves that nominations be submitted during the WGM for election after the plenary. Motion withdrawn

TSC Tracker 323: Determine/recommend the tools to be used across the organization; joint session with Tooling and ES Thursday Q1.

Current Status: Electronic Svcs WG to make a recommendation

Question was raised that we have trackers; do we leave an item on the tracker until it’s completed, or do we close it after the task is assigned to an appropriate delegate? If Electronic Services opened a project to address, then we can close the tracker. If we’re comfortable that ES will address this appropriately, we can close it. Ken moves to close 323 and 457 as ES has projects open to address. Calvin seconds. Ioana makes a friendly amendment that we include the reference to the ES project items within the TSC Tracker. Motion carried unanimously.

Current Status: Assigned to Charlie McCay. Business case is not part of the task description, only success criteria. Woody states that business case is a less clear term. Patrick asks how many projects don’t have a clear ballot cycle. Calvin says they had a certification test as a project. Austin asks if we need a business case for the ‘standard’ the project proposes to develop. Avoiding standards that get developed but never implemented. Helen indicates that DSTU is used for that. Calvin adds that standards will get dropped if they’re not used after their 5 year for renewal. Helen further adds the PSS already has the success criteria. Austin moves to close, Ken second; unanimously carried.

Austin and Ed meeting with Work Groups lacking Work Group Health measures to provide advice and prodding on where the ‘problem’ work groups should go. Discussion Monday night on what to do with Domain Experts – too large to operate. May need to split it. Woody thinks this is a worthy thing to track. Ed adds that the Steering Divisions don’t have SWOT analyses or Mission and Charter. Austin adds how they play into the SAEAF framework. Woody suggests we discuss again in four months’ time, with a reminder come December. Helen points out we have not documented the role of the Steering Divisions. Table issue and Ed and Austin will provide update at the next WGM.

the GOM does not have a mechanism for the SD or TSC to initiate the closing of a WG. Perhaps that should be addressed as part of the role of the Steering Division?

TSC Tracker 751: Assign a review and completion date for each item on the issue tracker -

Current Status: need responses from assignees; Charlie McCay says under our Friday calls with John we review dates for next discussion on the TSC. Close this item once we set dates on the next Friday call.

Current Status: noted by Ravi in item history in July. Difficult position he is in without getting feedback. Helen adds the Affiliate Council Sunday meeting now has separate section for TSC-related items. Is the role to represent an international view or to bring international topics to this table, or both? Is it that you pipe in to note when something should be universal realm or realm specific? Role of Affiliate rep is to represent the Affiliate organizations on TSC matters. Ravi says most affiliates are sitting and waiting for where to get on, as they are just coming into standards adoption. Don’t think we are doing enough to help them out. Not asking questions because they don’t know where to approach. Could Ravi discuss in a white paper on what the issues are and how to make the Affiliates’ council more vibrant and effectively engaged? Ravi says it can be closed; Woody moves to close, Ed second; unanimously approved.

Current Status: Charlie Mead says the ECCF component is capable to address but in the presence of human governance. ArB will come to TSC shortly with requests for assistance on how to operationalize governance. Charlie McCay says the TSC will have to come to the ArB to ask for a toolkit to administer governance. ArB is the architecture and TSC is operational. Framework defined in which governance can occur but the actual governance is still an issue. Not just Patient Care, but OO, other work groups also having this issue. DCM now relying on other components. SAEAF is ready to address but needs the governance. McCay says where it can be done within the Steering Divisions, it should, but SSD SD and DESD are overlapped all over the place. Mead says that the problem at the NCI was that 'you can’t tell us top-down what to do'. McCay doesn’t feel that is the case here. We know what ‘we’ want to do, and know that there are others wanting something else, come and tell us how to sort this out. TSC you ought to do your job. Austin says there is a minority that want to stay in their corner and not come out to play. Most are willing to work with the others. We already know this is a mess across steering divisions, needs organization-wide governance. Can’t be delegated to the Steering Divisons. Mead adds that governance takes bandwidth. McCay asks if it’s worth keeping the tracker open in its current state. We likely won’t get Patient Care to attend and present. Austin says when we come up for the next review if they don’t attend, close it. McCay says he’s hearing that Patient Care is not engaging appropriately in the HL7 organization. Patrick noted he recently attended an ISO DCM ballot reconciliation and they have not produced much for models yet. They’re not as far as people think. It’s not a JIC project. Hammond would like to see it clearly defined as it’s important, and have an official status; it seems to meander with no formal status. McCay says there is an ISO NWIP for quality standards for DCMs, as an approach to pan-standards content modeling. Hammond thinks it’s important for HL7 to be part of this and needs to be formal, with balloting process. McCay says then, we must require at least one project within HL7 to address that; it is a Patient Care project. So far, nothing has been voted on in HL7. Austin recounts that Patient Care says there are DCMs that other work groups in HL7 are ignoring. Galen adds that the same issue with CMETs, how do we reuse content. Mead states that it is a governance issue. Helen asks how much teeth does our group have; the representative of the group has not responded to our requests to come to our table, and they are operating outside the realm of the other work groups. The TSC should be saying, we’re going to shut you down unless you can show us you are executing this project as approved. Ravi says if we can shoot down CTS2 publication as not procedurally correct, can we shut the DCM project down (PI #320)? ISO can accept as part of NWIP a draft standard, the reconciliation was dealing with comments all over the place. Hammond says we should distinguish what we think we need to do versus what is actually being done. Patrick says we need to talk to William. Noted that Kevin had been unable to attend the TSC Calls. The PSS needs to be revisited, up for review back through Patient Care, Steering Division and back to the TSC. TSC should ask for revision of the Project Scope Statement, alpha project for SAEAF work, and needs to have clear ballot and visibility plans to determine how it fits in. Calvin asks if the GOM supports the TSC’s ability to do this; we should propose also an amendment for what we’re planning. We could suspend approval on the project or ask them to revise the proposal. Georgia 6, Q2 Thursday. Motion by Charlie Mead: suspend project and revoke project approval until they come with a new proposal. This would effectively prohibit them from balloting, although they have not expressed an intent to ballot. Austin seconds. Hammond fears they will go to the outside world and tell them that HL7 has shut us down. Helen offers friendly amendment that we actively work with them to create new project. Patrick says there’s not a motion to revoke in Robert’s Rules, only a motion to reconsider. Ioana agrees. They can still use the work group meeting room space, we avoid negative perception. Woody says we need a hallway discussion from John to get things in order. Galen suggested a friendly amendment that we revoke at the end of the week; give them the time during the WGM to establish a clear scope. Tripp suggests we send one or two representatives to their first meeting this week to present our discussion and expectations. Helen adds the Steering Division chairs are the right people, tell them the first subsequent call after the WGM will entertain a motion to rescind project approval. Helen moves to table Charlie’s motion to the next conference call. Calvin seconds; motion unanimously approved.

Helen moves the cochairs of SD take action to inform them of our discussion and help them take action to address our concerns, including the elaboration of the scope statement and that it must be a SAEAF project and JIC project. Charlie Mead seconds. Ioana asks are we asking all projects from here forward to be SAEAF projects? Feeling is no, only those with cross-work group considerations. Patrick says the ArB is running out of bandwidth to address many more additional SAEAF projects. Austin recounts that the issues they have raised warrant it being a SAEAF project. Friendly amendments ensued. Ioana would like guidance on selecting SAEAF projects. That discussion was set aside. Motion unanimously approved.

Ioana moved to formalize guidance for the work groups on which projects must be SAEAF alpha projects. Charlie suggests we have time this afternoon and tomorrow. Motion withdrawn.

(15 mins) Discuss deliverables coming out of Working Group Meeting; remove from standing agenda items.

(15 mins) Review TSC Mission and Charter - how are we doing against it? ‘Identify conflict’ too soft, the TSC should resolve. Ken suggests we state we 'coordinate between components of the Working Group'. What are the definitions of 'components of the working group'. Helen finds it a grammatical nightmare. Ken asks for wordsmithing. Action Item: Helen and Lynn will have something by Tuesday. The TSC is the source of truth for technical issues, up or down the chain. Composition section has alternate definition not adequately defined, no Board Liaison – drop the section and point to the GOM. Charlie Mead says SAEAF has specific language in it to note relationships with outside and inside groups. Mead will email it to Lynn.

Q3: 1:30-3 PM

Is there an impact of the MOUs on what the TSC does? Does the TSC have communication responsibilities to the JIC. ORC is responsible for relationships to other organizations, and Don Mon is chair right now. Need TSC representation on that Board committee. The TSC’s representative to the liaisons shall be Helen; Ed Hammond will add her right now and plan for her ratification. Ed says there is a matrix of liaisons (it’s on the Board’s page). Ed Tripp moves for Helen to be the appointed representative seconded by Woody; ‘’’’’motion passed unanimously’’’’’.

Austin notes we do more communication with cochairs: notification of projects, Update from the TSC, TSC newsletter, (Galen notes an appreciation of the TSC Newsletter), Monday night co-chairs meeting, but not actually communicating about the delivery plan against the roadmap. We should maintain the roadmap delivery item on there as an intention.

Should we add the JIC as an explicit communication requirement? Hammond feels there would be value in HL7’s communication to ISO. Quinn recounts that in these groups the members seem to have different ideas of what the others are or do. Ed Hammond, John Quinn, Chuck Jaffe, and Robert Dolin are on the JIC. Ed currently chairs. Robert, Chuck and John represent HL7. TSC has a wiki page on ISO and JIC projects; Ed says there have been no updates as the JIC has not met all summer. Ed also clarifies that JWG9 chairs are Don Newsham who represents ISO, Jaffe who represents HL7, and Melvin Reynolds who represents CEN. JWG9 is part of ISO but has members that are not part of a national standards body. It is also an information component of the JIC, but not an authorizing body. A project discussion at JWG9 does not make it a JIC project. McCay recounts a discussion in UK of how the JIC works, that projects should be approved within each SDO before coming to the JIC; Hammond says that is how it is supposed to be work now. Ed is supposed to have this from a combination of the HL7 project form, the ISO form etc. JIC projects need to have gone through NWIP process in ISO, and as project approval in HL7. Quinn notes that the probationary period for IHTSDO is over, and Hammond says that it is on the next JIC meeting agenda. Helen thinks the JIC process should be reviewed by the TSC, and Charlie McCay also suggests it might be included in the co-chairs’ handbook. Hammond also posits that some attendees at other meetings start work thinking they represent HL7 but don’t actually have HL7 representation – if it doesn’t come to John Quinn, it isn’t officially supported by HL7 participation, and doesn’t end up on the TSC Wiki page [1]. Those need to have agreed hosts and cochairs for the efforts. The issue is controlling in the ISO meeting who can speak for HL7. John is the sole voice in JIC for HL7.

Need to re-do the website project release piece. Ken says he will try to have that before the WGM is over. That deals with one specific item; but we need to look at the tactical planning. How shall the TSC deal with this year-long planning? Tripp says the format is unhelpful for review. He suggests that we take John’s list, and enter after each bullet what the TSC will do to support it. There are also items for the TSC that may not map onto the CTO objectives. Perhaps better to look at John’s objectives and determine what the TSC will do to support, e.g. the Roadmap bullets. Quinn feels less connected to those bullets than the rest of the list. Woody felt they were pretty detailed, and the third bullet is not what they really want but they want someone to develop the proposals. Taking note to Calvin by Charlie McCay that the Roadmap committee should identify some more specificity to those bullets. Helen comments that for next year’s list we don’t need to reference particulars like the list of ISO/JIC projects. Austin asks if the CTO objectives were given by the Board/CEO or the TSC or both; really, some of both. In the spirit of the management by objectives, this is not tied to bonuses, salaries etc. Charlie McCay asks: Looking forward to next year, what do we want to see in that list? And not to ask for World Peace or even Working Group peace. Is the Web Site really John’s project; maybe Web Site engagement – he’s not in charge of the releases. Under Enterprise Architecture, the big thing is Governance. Education and training, Calvin notes, is critical in order for the work in the trenches on the projects to be successful. Governance is both John’s problem and the TSC’s. Perhaps something we need to work on for next year, as Marc Koehn reports we are just getting momentum going on implementing architecture within the framework the ArB has defined. For next year it will be a document of the CTO objectives with the TSC responsibilities to those objectives.

(15 mins) Review TSC SWOT and Three-Year Plan (remember this?) Area of concern that there were not many candidates for Steering Divisions. Woody feels that the key is to understand what the Role of the Steering Divisions shall be. Galen reports that at a cochair there is not much happening at SD meetings except for project approval which is a rubber stamp except for the occasional controversy on a project. Communications come from the TSC to the cochairs but not to the Steering Divisions and from the Steering Divisions to the cochairs. Ioana recounts that we have not figured out how to take advantage of collaboration between the Working Groups in the Steering Division. Woody says MnM and InM etc have been having joint meetings for a long time. Helen feels SD chairs should encourage joint meetings; Woody asks if every joint meeting should be regarded as a Steering Division meeting? McCay intercedes that the Role of the Steering Divisions has been tabled. Helen reports also people have asked her how to get onto the TSC – maybe people don’t understand? Helen couldn’t figure out how she and Ken ran unopposed – Ioana says it’s because she may enjoy the respect of their peers. Helen says if this group should exercise its ‘teeth’ it might become more apparent. Austin adds the weakness of limited technical support is not what it once was. Mead says that at the ArB meeting in Traverse City they asked John to bring back to the TSC how does the TSC propose to manage the SAEAF given the appearance that the uptake of SAEAF will extend beyond the boundaries of HL7? NCI, Australia, Canada all looking at the SAEAF architecture not within the context of HL7 – Ken notes this is the same as other orgs using the RIM. SAEAF is a framework, more broadly based than a specification. For the SWOT, how do we express the range of influence outside HL7? SAEAF is HL7’s Enterprise Arch Fmwk, doesn’t preclude others’ use of it. If NCI wishes to extend it then NCI needs to come back to HL7 with their modifications. Are we going to brand it, or will it be a methodology they just use. McCay indicates it is almost a product issue. Gregg says an opportunity to linkage with roadmap is to crate a cross-org view of three-year plan for forecast. Action item: Lynn will attach her version of the three-year plan to the minutes.

(15 mins) ArB representation in GOM: no generic way to indicate the ArB representation on the TSC. The proposal has been rescinded from this GOM cycle. John Quinn indicates that Bob Dolin would like to see this better clarified. First version of the ArB had mix of practicing architects and other members. Second version of ArB had just the experienced architects in attendance. HL7 was paying for them to come (not that they wish to continue doing so). Confusion existed on whether those not appointed to the ArB were allowed to come. After one year, the ArB evaluated progress and identified additional representation from Steering Divisions and geographies. Others stepped aside to make room. Mead concludes that it’s not like the regular kind of HL7 committee; if you want it to work you have to be a bit selective of who you want on it. Helen notes that the ArB minutes are on line and Mead adds that the conference calls and meetings are totally open. By participating, the ArB will note those who have interest in participation as a formal committee member. Woody asks, what is the process for determining replacements? Is the ArB a self-appointing group? Mead says they would choose somebody, then go to John first, and the TSC for approval second. Helen notes There is no prohibition against members requesting appointment on ArB. Ed says there is merit to allowing the ArB chair to propose new members; the openness of the process is the issue. The ArB process is under the authority of the TSC, not without the participation of the ArB chair. Mead indicates there should be a skillset definition for ArB membership. The TSC has the authority to appoint ArB members, which includes the chair of the ArB as member of the TSC. Woody thinks that the TSC should expect the ArB to suggest candidates for filling an opening or satisfying a need for a skillset. The membership elects the TSC, the TSC appoints the ArB. Does there really need to be someone from each Steering Division on the ArB? The TSC’s issue may be that there is a group represented that is not. Galen adds his concern that the role of that person (SD rep to ArB) was not defined. Ioana adds that the skillset expectations for that person would be helpful to know. Woody recounts that some of the issues were on ‘less that smooth’ communication flows. Thus these appointments were intended to address that transparency. Mead hopes that it has improved. Summary: TSC appoints the ArB. Steering Division representation is not required. TSC will hear recommendations from the CTO and ArB chair on how those positions will be filled. Will we define the skillsets required? John Quinn says the skillset needs change as the conditions change. McCay suggests the TSC makes the decision, but not with published conditions. John suggests there be a one to two year review process for re-confirmation. Ken suggests the ArB makes that part of their DMPs and the re-confirmations come to the TSC. Helen suggests a standing item each September to re-confirm the ArB composition. Woody suggests every two years. McCay suggests we’ll review when we review the ArB DMPs upon revision.

Break 3:12 pm.

Q4: 3:30-5PM

(15 mins) Tooling

John wrote article for TSC newsletter. One topic was tooling. General plans went to Finance committee, but they just don’t have $2 million and can’t reduce the reserves. We can stabilize the environment, and make small improvements but we don’t want to wait 15 years to get onto a modern tooling environment at the $200k/year rate. Ioana comments that the new GForge gets two thumbs up. Woody notes there were some SVN transfer issues (over 10MB) that were Austin’s fault.  Adrian Wilkins in UK was very helpful getting the Scripts written. John says the projects are on schedule, OID registry fixes, Ed is working on back log of issues. Still looking for other sources of funding. Funding for GForge is secure, in a separate budget.

McCay suggests not useful to go through document in detail now, but have the discussion around the EA IP rollout planning and look at the set of tasks/activities we are concerned about right now and look at the RASCI chart for those activities. Mead suggests this will evolve/change as we go through the alpha projects. Gregg asked about the TSC’s “A” roles, which was reviewed as oversight.

Marc says we left Kyoto with some notional process hinging on exercising the framework in day-to-day activities. Didn’t really happen over the summer – instead of four projects implementing over the summer; now have some ready to start but only one having documenting their commitment. They did identify how to change their artifacts in the 4x3 matrix of SAEAF. They need feedback to SAEAF on how those artifacts to cross project that conflict with each other, governance issues, etc. what are the timelines moving forward to harness that knowledge, instantiate templates, and reawaken that part of the EA IP. If goal remains that alpha projects are to harden the SAEAF, how are we doing that? To align projects across the three paradigms, are there key/pivotal projects that absolutely HAVE to apply the SAEAF? How does the governance get applied? Are we surfacing the right integration issues between and among specifications? Can’t surface the concrete issues we’d hoped for due to lack of progress, but perhaps through conceptual discussions.

Charlie Mead adds: thinks we have a good set of projects ready to start (some have started). Most of the projects are service-based. Structured Documents has officially agreed to do CDA R3 for documents, Patrick doing a messaging project. Now it is interaction specification concerns. Normally messages and documents have not dealt with that specifically. Biggest impact of the alpha projects is the architectural governance that keeps coming up. Rollout of ECCF was conceptually difficult, operationally still more, but needs to have oversight. Moving from level three to level four. Something HL7 hasn’t historically done. One, popstpone everything to downstream when it hits ballot, but then which SAEAF artifacts are ballotable? Or, what milestones to be defined for artifacts submitted for review. Maybe people in the steering divisions could be monitoring? Similar to ’98 with the RIM to have facilitators to go out and do that, we need facilitators to go out and teach them how to generate the artifacts. PASS with charter, CTS2, caEHR, ITS, OO, CDA R3, IG in CDA (Europe), and we will have DCM.

Marc adds a challenge is depending on which group is making the change, need to kick off terms of reference of applying saeaf in their governance instruments. Set of agenda work for various committees to contemplate process changes. That is really the basis of the ITS work, says McCay. Hans talked to ArB on a project, but that is not the same one that Patrick is working on. Austin suggests that it needs the peer reviews that the HDF is calling for, as a gateway to balloting, or milestone before they can ballot, for model consistency across domains, clinical statement peer review on standard developed based on clinical statement, CDA, Patient Care review DCM work from other work groups, etc.

Calvin adds Structured Documents has committed CDA R3 to be SAEAF compliant but not alpha. Marc recounts that early projects will allow the SAEAF to be hardened faster but key projects have to be applied.

Mead says NCI learned that projects have timelines, and may not be able to do everything correctly, but when governance is applied you can document the shortcuts that were taken, and the next release downstream can correct the structural defects.

It’s not that the alpha projects must only occur during summer and fall 2009 by January 2010 but that is the greatest opportunity to influence the SAEAF, Marc clarifies. Mc Cay adds that there’s a Board initiative to look at products over the next three months or so. Maybe that needs to be a SAEAF alpha.

Marc asks if alpha means the SAEAF can still change while you are working on it, things are not yet defined for what you’re going to build. However all projects ought to start using SAEAF terminology and artifact definition and process deliverables. Klaus asks if there is a SAEAF for Dummies; Mead replies there’s a 2 ½ page overview but it does not have all terms definition etc. Marc acknowledges that’s a good recommendation. Mead contributes that the technical editing project was only just initiated and that such a glossary might be a by product.

Mead asks with SAEAF as a product that HL7 is developing, we need to make a concerted effort to find out what else is out there. This was done early on, but since the SAEAF has evolved so much there appear to be two others not in health care, ISO 19763 and TOGAF (The Open Group). In last nine months they started work on semantic interoperability. Woody is not convinced we should try to control it. Mead says that SAEAF is not domain specific like the RIM. The RIM could be made non-specific pretty easily though. McCay recounts another one in the UK, he will forward to Charlie. Ideally we should have more alpha experience that others will converge to us, rather than us converge to them.

McCay asks what about the HSSP issue. How is our joint standards dev relationship with OMG formalized. How is this RIM based to the data models. Mead says Koisch has written something he hopes Richard would agree to and in adopting ECCF. McCay asks if that approach has been addressed with SOA cochairs? Apparently not. John has had email discussions with Richard. He says that Richard says that OMG will never state what HL7’s SOA policy is. Concern was over a document our ArB folks commented upon but our comments were not acknowledged, Galen disagrees. Marc Koehn says this illustrates our formal and informal decision points, peer review, well-documented major deliverable with some kind of sign off required a more rigorous process around the governance execution. McCay says there’s clearly value in the HSSP brand, and in bringing HL7 into services and bringing services into HL7. Concern is how is that brand taken forward – an independent brand like IHE, brand of profiles working between two SDOs, brand within the SDOs? Confusion between the two approaches. The TSC is not going to achieve that clarity today or tomorrow but perhaps as a case study for discussion tomorrow night for the decisions that the enterprise process governance and concrete artifacts, how will the EA inform what we can do? Don’t think we should be trying to make decisions around the future of HSSP tomorrow, but what we do about the rollout of EA.

TOGAF adopted by group in Australia Richard says. Metamodel framework for interoperability in ISO he’s not familiar with. Mead says the ISO 19763 looks pretty close to SAEAF.

McCay asks for additional discussion topics for tomorrow nights EA sessions. He’s shocked and stunned at the reticence today. Marc recounts that in Kyoto we had to re-set and define EA Framework from the architecture. Definition of Architecture of standards and overall organization was difficult; we fell back to running some alpha projects to help define. Need to reconfirm where this is all leading us. Mead says the only concrete notion of it is from his experience in the NCI. Woody says to operationalize it we need to know what it is; we’re still operating on slide decks. Now there’s a tutorial tomorrow. Quinn says there’s a contract out (contractor name also Karen), three weeks into the documents and slide decks for technical editing to make sense. Karen (Van) should be bringing drafts to this meeting. Mead says we have enough to tell any service project what artifacts they need but don’t have the governance. Mead says caEHR service project team staring with BRIDG clone and EHR FM from HL7 and creating templates to populate the ECCF. There is a governance team at NCI that reviews those documents as they are specified. Ioana asks if there should be a maintenance project around a project (e.g. CTS2). Mead says at some point the artifacts produced by projects using SAEAF need to be reviewed by a governance process. They are only concerned with compliance to SAEAF but not the content, except for the inconsistent representation of the same content. Usually we have governance by ballot box.

Marc circles back that we need to have the discussion of the outcomes so we know where we’re going. Mead replies at NCI doing stuff in silos, same stuff inconsistently, at NCI the governance committee find the stuff and pull things out and set them out as primitives. The one-sentence mantra is that the enterprise is a first class citizen. Static vs dynamic vs semantic governance. Marc says we get to a decision process to define principles that this group can say no to this other group to avoid breaking validations and creating inconsistency.

Ioana expects that from the architecture that you will have a style guide for the artifacts but that will not solve content inconsistency between projects. Publishing guide provides the reviewers a consistent method to review, that is determined at ballot time. There is already a governance process in the style guides. It may not be working but whatever improvements made need to fit in. Mead suggests that these inconsistencies are to be addressed before the ballot. Where do we detect when two projects have evolved to encroach upon one another. Mead says in his experience projects don’t encroach but instead become too narrow that actually have further reaching implications. Woody says in the beginning Virginia and Dick’s process was not followed. Harmonization is not the answer but maybe something not too much different. ArB composition would have to change to provide that breadth of review.

Helen offers apologies for tomorrow, and comments on Ioana’s observation, the Steering Divisions should be identifying those encroachments on scope and bringing it to the TSC. Ioana says that we don’t really have anything before it goes to ballot to review. Woody clarifies request for ballot is committee only, and the Steering Division is not involved. Marc says we’re trying to design the process on the fly; need to identify the steps and hard gates. Sunday might identify the principles and others go away and come back with how to break that apart. Can also devise the governance along the layers.

Charlie Mead, John Koisch and Helen all at caEHR meeting tomorrow night and not available for our discussion; Patrick can be here to represent the ArB. Mead offers to give 5 minute review of how NCI does governance.

Messages to:

the Affiliates Council Sunday;

Progress on product and project visibility, letters from TSC, one page slide – what is the message to the Affiliates on SAEAF? McCay says SAEAF is not realm-specific. Is there a message that needs to go to the Affiliates? Woody says the message for everyone is that this is heavy serious business and not going away. John can discuss what has happened since the last meeting. Marc to do 5 minutes of Charlie’s National Initiative time at 11:45 AM. Ravi can work with Lynn on visibility.

WGM attendees Tuesday AM,

visibility projects, how to build value proposition around SAEAF.

to the Board Tuesday PM,

Fund Tooling.

Should we show them the Work Group Health metrics? Not ready to draw conclusions off of them.

to the Membership (Technical Newsletter);

how to use the Work Group Health metrics to promote, generate revenue, and provide guidance.

How to generate revenue? McCay says speaking with cancer research or genomics folks in the UK he’d recommend they engage with HL7 but with visibility efforts and WG Health metrics are a marketable proposition to go out and get members. Would like to see HL7 employ someone to talk to active projects and WG to ask who should we be reading out to, to become members to take advantage of the community in your work group, actively selling membership and WGM attendance based on those metrics. Those who are successful will grow more successful, but those that are not may wither on the vine. Conversely, If an area is doing poorly, you’d be able to engage with that area to be made more robust. Hammond suggests pilot projects.